Part 12 (2/2)
This custom has always existed in the churches. For although some more frequently, and others more rarely, introduced German hymns, nevertheless the people almost everywhere sang something in their own tongue. [Therefore, this is not such a new departure.] It has, however, nowhere been written or represented that the act of hearing lessons not understood profits men, or that ceremonies profit, not because they teach or admonish, but _ex opere operato_, because they are thus performed or are looked upon. Away with such pharisaic opinions! [Ye sophists ought to be heartily ashamed of such dreams!]
The fact that we hold only Public or Common Ma.s.s [at which the people also commune, not Private Ma.s.s] is no offense against the Church catholic. For in the Greek churches even to-day private Ma.s.ses are not held, but there is only a public Ma.s.s, and that on the Lord's Day and festivals. In the monasteries daily Ma.s.s is held, but this is only public. These are the traces of former customs. For nowhere do the ancient writers before Gregory make mention of private Ma.s.ses.
We now omit noticing the nature of their origin. It is evident that after the mendicant monks began to prevail, from most false opinions and on account of gain they were so increased that all good men for a long time desired some limit to this thing. Although St. Francis wished to provide aright for this matter, as he decided that each fraternity should be content with a single common Ma.s.s daily, afterwards this was changed, either by superst.i.tion or for the sake of gain. Thus, where it is of advantage, they themselves change the inst.i.tutions of the Fathers; and afterwards they cite against us the authority of the Fathers. Epiphanius writes that in Asia the Communion was celebrated three times a week, and that there were no daily Ma.s.ses. And indeed he says that this custom was handed down from the apostles. For he speaks thus: a.s.semblies for Communion were appointed by the apostles to be held on the fourth day, on Sabbath eve, and the Lord's Day.
Moreover, although the adversaries collect many testimonies on this topic to prove that the Ma.s.s is a sacrifice, yet this great tumult of words will be quieted when the single reply is advanced that this line of authorities, reasons and testimonies, however long, does not prove that the Ma.s.s confers grace er opere operato, or that, when applied on behalf of others, it merits for them the remission of venial and mortal sins, of guilt and punishment. This one reply overthrows all objections of the adversaries, not only in this _Confutation_, but in all writings which they have published concerning the Ma.s.s.
And this is the issue [the princ.i.p.al question] of the case of which our readers are to be admonished, as Aeschines admonished the judges that just as boxers contend with one another for their position, so they should strive with their adversary concerning the controverted point, and not permit him to wander beyond the case. In the same manner our adversaries ought to be here compelled to speak on the subject presented. And when the controverted point has been thoroughly understood, a decision concerning the arguments on both sides will be very easy.
For in our Confession we have shown that we hold that the Lord's Supper does not confer _grace ex opere operato_, and that, when applied on behalf of others, alive or dead, it does not merit for them _ex opere operato_ the remission of sins, of guilt or of punishment. And of this position a clear and firm proof exists in that it is impossible to obtain the remission of our sins on account of our own work _ex opere operato_ [even when there is not a good thought in the heart], but the terrors of sin and death must be overcome by faith when we comfort our hearts with the knowledge of Christ, and believe that for Christ's sake we are forgiven, and that the merits and righteousness of Christ are granted us, Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have peace. These things are so sure and so firm that they can stand against all the gates of h.e.l.l.
If we are to say only as much as is necessary, the case has already been stated. For no sane man can approve that pharisaic and heathen opinion concerning the _opus operatum_. And nevertheless this opinion inheres in the people, and has increased infinitely the number of ma.s.ses. For ma.s.ses are purchased to appease G.o.d's wrath, and by this work they wish to obtain the remission of guilt and of punishment; they wish to procure whatever is necessary in every kind of life [health riches, prosperity, and success in business]. They wish even to liberate the dead. Monks and sophists have taught this pharisaic opinion in the Church.
But although our case has already been stated, yet, because the adversaries foolishly pervert many pa.s.sages of Scripture to the defense of their errors, we shall add a few things on this topic. In the _Confutation_ they have said many things concerning ”sacrifice,”
although in our Confession we purposely avoided this term on account of its ambiguity. We have set forth what those persons whose abuses we condemn now understand as a sacrifice. Now, in order to explain the pa.s.sages of Scripture that have been wickedly perverted, it is necessary in the beginning to set forth what a sacrifice is. Already for an entire period of ten years the adversaries have published almost infinite volumes concerning sacrifice, and yet not one of them thus far has given a definition of sacrifice. They only seize upon the name ”sacrifices” either from the Scriptures or the Fathers [and where they find it in the Concordances of the Bible apply it here, whether it fits or not]. Afterward they append their own dreams, as though indeed a sacrifice signifies whatever pleases them.
Part 30
_What a Sacrifice Is, and What Are the Species of Sacrifice._
[Now, lest we plunge blindly into this business, we must indicate, in the first place, a distinction as to what is, and what is not, a sacrifice. To know this is expedient and good for all Christians.]
Socrates, in the Phaedrus of Plato, says that he is especially fond of divisions, because without these nothing can either be explained or understood in speaking, and if he discovers any one skilful in making divisions, he says that he attends and follows his footsteps as those of a G.o.d. And he instructs the one dividing to separate the members in their very joints, lest, like an unskilful cook, he break to pieces some member. But the adversaries wonderfully despise these precepts, and, according to Plato, are truly _kakoi mageiroi_ (poor butchers), since they break the members of ”sacrifice,” as can be understood when we have enumerated the species of sacrifice.
Theologians are rightly accustomed to distinguish between a Sacrament and a sacrifice. Therefore let the genus comprehending both of these be either a ceremony or a sacred work. A Sacrament is a ceremony or work in which G.o.d presents to us that which the promise annexed to the ceremony offers; as Baptism is a work, not which we offer to G.o.d but in which G.o.d baptizes us, i.e., a minister in the place of G.o.d; and G.o.d here offers and presents the remission of sins, etc., according to the promise, Mark 16, 16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. A sacrifice, on the contrary, is a ceremony or work which we render G.o.d in order to afford Him honor.
Moreover, the proximate species of sacrifice are two, and there are no more. One is the propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a work which makes satisfaction for guilt and punishment, i.e., one that reconciles G.o.d, or appeases G.o.d's wrath, or which merits the remission of sins for others. The other species is the eucharistic sacrifice, which does not merit the remission of sins or reconciliation, but is rendered by those who have been reconciled, in order that we may give thanks or return grat.i.tude for the remission of sins that has been received, or for other benefits received.
These two species of sacrifice we ought especially to have in view and placed before the eyes in this controversy, as well as in many other discussions; and especial care must be taken lest they be confounded. But if the limits of this book would suffer it, we would add the reasons for this division. For it has many testimonies in the Epistle to the Hebrews and elsewhere. And all Levitical sacrifices can be referred to these members as to their own homes [genera]. For in the Law certain sacrifices were named propitiatory on account of their signification or similitude; not because they merited the remission of sins before G.o.d, but because they merited the remission of sins according to the righteousness of the Law, in order that those for whom they were made might not be excluded from that commonwealth [from the people of Israel]. Therefore they were called sin-offerings and burnt offerings for a trespa.s.s. Whereas the eucharistic sacrifices were the oblation, the drink-offering, thank-offerings, first-fruits, t.i.thes.
[Thus there have been in the Law emblems of the true sacrifice.] But in fact there has been only one propitiatory sacrifice in the world, namely, the death of Christ, as the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches, which says, 10, 4: It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. And a little after, of the [obedience and] will of Christ, v. 10: By the which will we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And Isaiah interprets the Law, in order that we may know that the death of Christ is truly a satisfaction for our sins, or expiation, and that the ceremonies of the Law are not, wherefore he says, 53, 10: When Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He will see His seed, etc. For the word employed here, _'shm_, signifies a victim for transgression; which signified in the Law that a certain Victim was to come to make satisfaction for our sins and reconcile G.o.d in order that men might know that G.o.d wishes to be reconciled to us, not on account of our own righteousnesses, but on account of the merits of another, namely, of Christ. Paul interprets the same word _'shm_ as sin, Rom. 8, 3: For sin (G.o.d) condemned sin, i.e., He punished sin for sin, i.e., by a Victim for sin. The significance of the word can be the more easily understood from the customs of the heathen, which, we see, have been received from the misunderstood expressions of the Fathers. The Latins called a victim that which in great calamities, where G.o.d seemed to be especially enraged, was offered to appease G.o.d's wrath, a _piaculum_; and they sometimes sacrificed human victims, perhaps because they had heard that a human victim would appease G.o.d for the entire human race. The Greeks sometimes called them _katharmata_ and sometimes _peripsehmata_. Isaiah and Paul, therefore, mean that Christ became a victim i.e., an expiation, that by His merits, and not by our own, G.o.d might be reconciled.
Therefore let this remain established in the case namely, that the death of Christ alone is truly a propitiatory sacrifice. For the Levitical propitiatory sacrifices were so called only to signify a future expiation. On account of a certain resemblance, therefore, they were satisfactions redeeming the righteousness of the Law, lest those persons who sinned should be excluded from the commonwealth.
But after the revelation of the Gospel [and after the true sacrifice has been accomplished] they had to cease, and because they had to cease in the revelation of the Gospel, they were not truly propitiations, since the Gospel was promised for this very reason, namely, to set forth a propitiation.
Now the rest are eucharistic sacrifices which are called sacrifices of praise, Lev. 3, 1 f.; 7, 11 f.; Ps. 56, 12 f., namely, the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, the afflictions of saints yea, all good works of saints. These sacrifices are not satisfactions for those making them, or applicable on behalf of others, so as to merit for these, ex opere operato, the remission of sins or reconciliation. For they are made by those who have been reconciled. And such are the sacrifices of the New Testament, as Peter teaches, 1. Ep. 2, 5: An holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices. Spiritual sacrifices, however, are contrasted not only with those of cattle, but even with human works offered _ex opere operato_, because spiritual refers to the movements of the Holy Ghost in us. Paul teaches the same thing Rom. 12, 1: Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable, which is your reasonable service. Reasonable service signifies, however, a service in which G.o.d is known and apprehended by the mind, as happens in the movements of fear and trust towards G.o.d. Therefore it is opposed not only to the Levitical service, in which cattle are slain, but also to a service in which a work is imagined to be offered _ex opere operato_. The Epistle to the Hebrews, 13, 15, teaches the same thing: By Him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to G.o.d continually; and he adds the interpretation, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. He bids us offer praises, i.e., prayer, thanksgiving, confession, and the like. These avail not _ex opere operato_, but on account of faith. This is taught by the clause: By Him let us offer, i.e., by faith in Christ.
In short, the wors.h.i.+p of the New Testament is spiritual, i.e., it is the righteousness of faith in the heart and the fruits of faith. It accordingly abolishes the Levitical services. [In the New Testament no offering avails _ex opere operato, sine bono motu utentis_, i.e.
on account of the work, without a good thought in the heart.] And Christ says, John 4, 23. 24: True wors.h.i.+pers shall wors.h.i.+p the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to wors.h.i.+p Him.
G.o.d is a Spirit; and they that wors.h.i.+p Him must wors.h.i.+p Him in spirit and in truth [that is from the heart, with heartfelt fear and cordial faith]. This pa.s.sage clearly condemns [as absolutely devilish, pharisaical, and antichristian] opinions concerning sacrifices which they imagine, avail _ex opere operato_, and teaches that men ought to wors.h.i.+p in spirit i.e., with the dispositions of the heart and by faith. [The Jews also did not understand their ceremonies aright, and imagined that they were righteous before G.o.d when they had wrought works _ex opere operato_. Against this the prophets contend with the greatest earnestness.] Accordingly, the prophets also in the Old Testament condemn the opinion of the people concerning the opus operatum and teach the righteousness and sacrifices of the Spirit.
Jer. 7, 22. 23: For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey My voice, and I will be your G.o.d, etc. How do we suppose that the Jews received this arraignment, which seems to conflict openly with Moses? For it was evident that G.o.d had given the fathers commands concerning burnt offerings and victims. But Jeremiah condemns the opinion concerning sacrifices which G.o.d had not delivered namely, that these services should please Him _ex opere operato_. But he adds concerning faith that G.o.d had commanded this: Hear Me, i.e., believe Me that I am your G.o.d; that I wish to become thus known when I pity and aid; neither have I need of your victims; believe that I wish to be G.o.d the Justifier and Savior, not on account of works, but on account of My word and promise, truly and from the heart seek and expect aid from Me.
Ps. 50, 13. 15, which rejects the victims and requires prayer, also condemns the opinion concerning the opus operatum: Will I eat the flesh of bulls? etc. (Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me. The Psalmist testifies that this is true service, that this is true honor, if we call upon Him from the heart.
Likewise Ps. 40, 6: Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; mine ears hast Thou opened, i.e., Thou hast offered to me Thy Word that I might hear it, and Thou dost require that I believe Thy Word and The promises, that Thou truly desirest to pity, to bring aid, etc.
<script>